Hart v. U.S.
| Citation | 910 F.2d 815 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-5007,90-5007 |
| Parties | Jewell M. HART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Page 815
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.
Federal Circuit.
Page 816
Jewell M. Hart, Hampstead, N.C., pro se.
James M. Kinsella, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Gerson, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen. and David M. Cohen, Director. Also on the brief was Captain Paul C. Clark, Office of the Judge Advocate Gen., U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Circuit Judge, * SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge. **
DUPLANTIER, District Judge.
The United States Claims Court decided that this suit for annuity benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan, 10 U.S.C. Secs. 1447-1455 (1982), filed by a widow more than six years after the death of her military retiree husband, is not barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2501 (1988), as to benefits which had become due and payable to her within six years prior to her filing suit, on the ground that it is a "continuing" claim. Hart v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 481 (1989). The United States appeals that decision. We reverse.
Jewell M. Hart is the widow of Sergeant Gene Cleon Hart, who retired from active duty with the United States Air Force in 1976. At the time of or after his retirement, Sergeant Hart elected not to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Sergeant Hart died on October 15, 1980.
Mrs. Hart filed suit on October 18, 1988, seeking to recover SBP annuity benefits allegedly due her since the date of her husband's death. She alleged that the
Page 817
government failed to notify her of her husband's decision not to participate in the SBP, as required by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1448(a)(3)(A). 1The government moved to dismiss the suit, contending that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The Claims Court denied the government's motion in part, holding that the claim for SBP annuity benefits was a "continuing" claim and, therefore, the claim for those benefits accruing within six years of the time suit was filed was not time barred. Thereafter, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, except for benefits which accrued more than six years before suit was filed.
The United States Claims Court lacks authority to consider claims and grant relief against the government, absent congressional consent. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953-54, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976). This consent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter
... ... 310, 315, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 2962, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 769, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Hart v. United States, 910 F.2d 815, 817 (Fed.Cir.1990). Resolving the question whether a party may maintain a suit against the United States in a ... As an initial matter, Broughton urges us to interpret the waiver of sovereign immunity provided in section 544m(b)(2) of the Gorge Act broadly, "consistent with the broad interpretation ... ...
-
Wood-Ivey Systems Corp. v. U.S.
... ... 1975) (liberal interpretation of Rule 6(a) avoids technicalities that prevent individuals from presenting their claims against the government); Hart v. United States, 817 F.2d 78, 80 (9th Cir.1987) (Rule 6(a) applies to time for filing tort claim against the United States and the district court ... at 396 n. 12, 102 S.Ct. at 1133 n. 12. The concurrence states that "[i]n Irwin the Supreme Court freed us from that improductive exercise [of distinguishing between types of time limits]; the majority opinion properly eschews this stale debate." The ... ...
-
Huff v. U.S. Dept. of Army, Civil No. L-05-805.
... ... This statute "is jurisdictional in nature and, as an express limitation on [the Tucker Act's] waiver of sovereign immunity, cannot be waived." Hart v. United States, 910 F.2d 815, 818-19 (Fed.Cir.1990).6 ... Huff does not clearly state the amount he is seeking. His complaint is ... ...
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States
... ... See Sankey v. United States , 22 Cl. Ct. 743, 746 (1991) ("This court no longer recognizes the continuing claims doctrine." (citing Hart v. United States , 910 F.2d 815, 817 (Fed. Cir. 1990))). Nonetheless, it is currently recognized and applied. See Nicholas v. United States , 42 ... ...
-
Supreme Court Issues Significant Rulings on Eminent Domain Issues: A Primer on 5th Amendment Takings Jurisprudence
...statute of limitations for filing suit in the Court of Federal Claims is six years. 28 U.S.C. ...